TermiteHunter wrote:I have to agree with you, at least to some degree that using GC caches to reach cachers is wrong.I'm sure they would not approve of the practice but then I'm sure they wouldn't really approve of any of the alternative trackables to their own endorsed products which is why they don't work within their system in an attempt to quash any upstarts.

I have had success with using the TB with a moving cache but then I only have the one. I am far more likely to get a log on the TB than the cache except when it is hidden alone as a pure OCNA cache.

I have to call you out a little too though......Aren't you doing the same sort of thing with some of your waymarks on OCNA? I see no mention of OCNA on their page.I'm not suggesting you remove them or even the mention of the other site (please don't) but would they allow a mention of the listing on OCNA?

I posted a note on the three virtuals that I left here that they were my listed Waymarks, but that can be taken care of quickly. I did intend on leaving a few of my listings here because I worked hard to make them a nice addition to OCNA. It's really not funny that you three admins talk about how open and flexible OCNA is and you call me out in the public forums on it for posting a note on my own listing.

I think TH was referring to your own statement that using one site to promote / reference another isn't right. Of course, we incorporate links to crosslisted caches and links to search for nearby caches on some of the other sites. Even Groundspeak does not apply their non-agenda / non-solicitation rules to trackables, so it's fair game.

DudleyGrunt wrote:I think TH was referring to your own statement that using one site to promote / reference another isn't right. Of course, we incorporate links to crosslisted caches and links to search for nearby caches on some of the other sites. Even Groundspeak does not apply their non-agenda / non-solicitation rules to trackables, so it's fair game.

That is exactly my point. On the cache page there is the links to other sites where the cache is listed, and Waymarking.com is not one of the options. If it was, I would have used the link just the same as I did with my traditionals. That is exactly what my virtual there on OBX is, a crosslisted Waymark.

As for OCNA trackables that lead back to here and people trashing them as inappropriate to be found in GC caches, that is a real thought. It's hard enough to keep them from getting lost without linking them to a alternative geocaching site. I know people discovered mine at that Leap Day event, but nobody logged it for some reason. Maybe the OpenCaching name makes people think about Garmin's old site, but OCNA was never as popular so I don't know. We don't have any active Waymarkers in the area either, and very few Wherigo users.

My new WIG is the only non PMO cache that I have, so I'll see how it works out.

Personally I have no issues with using a combined travel bug / moving cache.If you are eating in a restaurant and stand up and declare that the establishment next store is a better choice because [free food, high-quality food, more food, less distance-between food, larger servings, less customers, more variety, more grandfathered food-types...whatever], well that would surely be frowned upon by the owner of the shop you're in. Why? because they're in it for the money and don't want customers to leave their shop and go next store. You can't eat in two places at the same time.

But geocaching isn't a business or a commercial enterprise (even if the largest listing service is a commercial enterprise), and you can drink from many wells at the same time. I do. each one has a bit of a different flavour, and I like the variety. So while I'm out and about, I might find a groundspeak cache, an OpenCache, a TerraCache, a letterbox, some waymarks.When I'm camping at a state park, I see no reason not to tell the other campers I meet about other great parks we've visited, even if those parks are in other states / countries. Why? So they also can enjoy those great experiences, if they choose to. Maybe these are poor parallel examples, but that's how I see it. Geocaching is an experience, not a political party, religion or business where we need to ascribe to one way or another. When I log a letterbox on AtlasQuest, I will mention the nearby geocache I also found. when I log an opencache, I will mention the nearby Waymark. When I hide an opencache near an existing groundspeak cache, I will encourage the finder to find both of them. And while logging a groundspeak find, I will also mention the cool OCNA cache or Terracache that was the target cache for my outing. I'd be doing a diservice to my fellow cachers if I didn't tell them of the fun that could be having on top of the fun they are already having. Like my advice on parks and attractions, most won't bother checking into what I told them about. But at least I told them. And maybe that's better anyway, do i really want my favourite parks to become over-run with visitors? No, but at the same time it's not mine to horde, so i share the info and then they do with it as they decide.So if you have a waymark and want to post it here as a virtual, go for it. (I have! - and have a few more still to come; actually, now they start at OCNA caches and maybe if time permits I'll also post it as a waymark - at least this site is being actively developed). Maybe someday someone will visit it, someone who also doesn't waymark (and I'd say few OCNA users also log Waymarks). Probably no one will visit either. very few of my OCNA hides have any finds. And very few of my waymarks have any visits - even a bunch that I think are very super cool and worth being visited. I knew that when I listed them, and I'm not going to get pissy about it a year or two later when they are still unfound.

Yeah, the one OCNA moving cache / travel bug that I released has only been logged on groundspeak, not on OCNA. But look at those logs - it was released at an event and all the "Discovered Logs" are auto-discovered using third-party software. It's a bunch of "Discovered your trackable at event XYZ. Thanks for sharing". Wow, those are fun logs to get!Am I discouraged? Nope, this is what I expected. And so the other two Open Ambassador moving caches / travel bugs will be released shortly (after a few set-backs in getting them ready to go out). Since nearly all my groundspeak trackables have gone missing (including 7 released in two family travel bug races - travel bugs purchased for the kids but only a few lasted more than a year), my expectations are low anyway. This time I'm keeping the tags, and if they go missing, I'll send out another one to take it's place.

The Infiltrator TB was logged twice todayPlaced and Picked UpOut of curiosity I checked the latest finders GC name on OCNASurprise, They are a member as of 7/2/16.

Goal 1 achieved with a travel bug moving cache, they logged the TB Goal 2 achieved, they checked out the siteGoal 3 achieved, they joined OCNANow to see if they go so far as to log a find on an alternative site.

I dropped one of my three travel bugs / moving caches into a GC cache in Athen TX when we were there in early June. Put a watch on that cache and it'd had a few finders since then but no mention of the bug. Then today I received these messages:

So to summarize, the cache/trackable was picked and dropped off and logged on both sites. Perfect score!FWIW, TheThompsons signed up to OCNA a few months back. Glad they were able to find my moving cache.

Excellent, That is exactly what is supposed to happen and it worked.Now to see if they follow up with an independent find of an OCNA cache.

My similar mini moving caches have all disappeared. Of course they did not have the benefit of the travel bug.I need to check on the caches they were last placed in to see if any are still there but I imagine they are gone.The one with the travel bug dog tag (The Infiltrator) hasn't been logged in a while. I expect it will appear eventually.